Signal-Copiahan. (Hazlehurst, Copiah County, Miss.) 1885-1888, 1887-02-24
TRIAL BY JURY.
Sketch OF It's Origin and Eject In
England.
Magma Charta and the Bulwsrk of Her
Observation-Disclosures With "Isattle-
rlght"-Orlgin and Present
Practice Of Jurles.

began to take form in this country.
trial 10y jury, or some process tanta-
mount thereto. has been an inherent
part of English Jurisprudence. We
have never parted with it, We have
Dot seriously changed its condition.
In principle il il retained in its original
simplicity; and its value and antiquity
are admitted by all those writers who
have dealt with the subject. Its rctcn-
toni icalously. and even pcrcmptorilv.
insisted on in Magma Charta. That it
has been occasionally abused has not
diminished the admiration for IL. and
time but confirms the judgment of our
early legal commentators in describing
il ~ the bulwark Of our liberties. The
Norman attempt 10 substitute for
it trial by battle is at once n
proof Of the part 1t played far back in
the national existence aud OF its
hold upon the English mind. IL was
very soon found that trial by battle
was neither safe nor u fair way of
getting AZ the guilt or innocence Of an
accused party. Ii seems, however. To
have been used in criminal and civil
eases and in military trial. The pro-
cess was somewhat peculiar. Ina case
Of felony. the accused was at liberty To
follow up his plea of not guilty with u
declaration OF his readiness to make
g0,d the same with hi. boil" :" f~'r
fight against the prosecutor. This be-
ing Done, the court would appoint n
time and place for the battle. and ii
was provided that the night before the
day of battle both parties should he
arraigncd by the marshal and brought
into the field before the Justices of the
court whore the appeal was depending.
Then at the rising of the sun they were
to appear bare headed aud bare
legged from the knee downward,
and bare on the arms 10 the elbow.
armed only with bastons an ell long
aud four cornercd targets; and before
they began the contest they had to
make oath that they had neither eaten,
nor drank. nor done any thing else by
which the law of God might be de-
pressed and the law of the devil exalt-
cd The combat then began. IL the ac-
cused were vanquished 80 that he could
not or would not fight longer, IL was
within the power of the court to order
him to bc hanged Immediately. II.
however. he could maintain the fight
till twilight. judgment was to be given
in his favor. II. on the other hand, the
prosecutor became "crying coward.
ihe accused could recover damages and
might plead his acquittal. There was
this element Of fairness in the proceed
ing. that If the prosecutor by
age or otherwise was unable to wage
battle, the defendant would BE- COM
peeled To put himself upon his country,
no champions being allowed in crimi-
nal cases. At the best, however, the
system had neither justice nor equity
20 commend il. AMI il is not surprising
that trial by jury held its own against
IL.
The origin of this "bulwark of our
liberties" has never been clearly ascer-
tanned. IL has been attributed To the
Greeks. II was in principle exercised
in ancient Rome. where criminal
trial was conducted before presiding
Judge and body of selected citizens
whose functions il was To determine
the guilt or innocence of the accused,
and who could exercise also the pre-
rogatiye of mercy. Some writers claim
that the system was in use among the
Britons, and there is very little doubt
that in substance il was prac-
ticed in the time of Ethelred. In
Forsyth's History Of Jury Trial"
we are told that in the Anglo-SaSon
era courts were presided over by a
Reeve. who had NO voice in the decis-
ion. and that the number of persons
who sat was usually twelve. The as
sertions of parties were admitted to be
conclusive. where supported by the
oaths Of certain number Of compurga-
tors. In matters of general concern. 1t
was usual. IN arriving at decision. TO
appeal TO the testimony OF the neigh
borhood; and IL seems also that sworn
witnesses were appointed in each dis
rict. their duty being TO attest all bar
gains and transactions. in order that
they might be ready to give evidence In
case of dispute. Every care. we are
told further, was taken that all deal
inrs between man and man should be
a, open and public as possible. Not
withstanding that Duke William IA
yored the absurd and crude sys-
TEN of bat;le-right lis no, improbable
that TO the Conquest we are indeboed